Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

One of the original Neocon architects and a signer of the infamous PNAC letter, Francis Fukuyama, says the movement has failed and has "evolved into something I can no longer support," according to this report.

Further, he makes what can only be seen as an exceedingly uncomfortable --- yet perfectly apt --comparison between the Bush Administration policies and ... Leninism.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."

Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly".

Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who "believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States".

Yes, I read this article yesterday. I found it fairly inspiring. I've been thinking for some time that there must certainly be a few fanatically self-righteous neocons who are now feeling thoroughly dejected and demoralized, or are on the verge of it. They have spent the past thirty-plus years being utterly and insanely convinced that they had the only true answer to this country's (nay, the world's) "problems." As their deadly schemes now turn to dust (or sand), they must certainly be feeling like foolish, humiliated, overgrown children before the angry eyes of their countrymen and the rest of the world. At least I hope this is true.

They have spent their entire lives worshipping a totally defective "master plan." Oh, how it must hurt.

I apologize for going somewhat off topic in this comment; however, I take some comfort in knowing that I am, at least, remaining true to the main BradBlog "mission statement."

Paul Craig Roberts, the most intelligent and inspiring conservative I've ever known (at least as far as his 21st-century editorials go), is on fire again in his latest editorial. BradBlog readers might be particularly interested in the final two paragraphs, which read as follows:

"To combat the Republican lock on electronic voting machines, the US is in desperate need of the UN to oversee our elections to prevent Republicans with low approval ratings from winning elections that exit polls show they lost.

"The Bush regime is wasting huge borrowed sums at a time when job growth in America has collapsed, when tens of millions of Americans are losing their health care, their pensions, and their middle class status. America cannot afford such a moronic regime. Someone, somewhere please rescue us from the ignorant, tyrannical, and war criminal government that has seized America."

Fukuyama states: "The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism"

What bothers me the most about this is that this administration has taken incredibly large measures to insure that this error in judgement will become a reality, anyway, by having created it with their agression.

Is there a threat there? Of course. That is plain enough. But this administration's reaction to all of this smacks more of Imperialism than self-protection. They've insidiously used the threat to carry out a pre-existing Imperialistic agenda.

Gore Vidal stated:

“I don't see us winning this war. We have made enemies of one billion Muslims."

Also, how about marketing Curtis Paraphernalia (T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers) to bring attention, support, and much needed financing to this election? More than any other "local" election, this one has great national (if not international) importance.

Funny, but I found Francis Fukuyama's statement that our greatest misjudgment was "overestimating
the threat from radical Islamism" a bit odd.

Is there such a thing as "radical Islamism?" Is that anything like Christianism? Or, are there simply religious fanatics who happen to be Muslims and are willing to blow themselves to bits? Fukuyama seems to be saying, "Yes, there is a Muslim caliphate, it's just not as big a deal as we thought." If he's right...where's the dividing line?

Anyway, his criticism is welcome. Now, get ready for the swift-boating of Francis Fukuyama. "He's been drinking too much saki." "His great-uncle organized the Bataan Death March." etc. etc. etc.

Hey, Dredd, that's powerful info. But may I point out that backing up and legitimizing those Rep. chairpersons are the Fundamentalist/evangelical Christians.

There are many individuals, groups, associations, and parties that have conspired to destroy this country of ours. But let's face it, the self-styled Christians were the most hypocritical and the most damaging, in the end. They were the enablers who made possible the vote-fraud, the poisoning of the Enlightenment, the shit-smearing of liberalism.

The day is coming when ownership of a Holy Bible will be felonious. And the Republican Party in the USA will have the same status as the National Socialists do in Germany today.

Ya know, my first reaction to that is, "Hullo! BRAAAD! Don't you think that such a scathing, honest, total 180-of-an-indictment on the part of one of the founding, signing members of the PNA-freakin-C (quite obviously as a result of either his having been struck by lightning/God's Wrath recently, or the more likely scenario wherein he's been sacrificed and eaten and that is now an alien robot replacement-being who will be hangin out with us as him for another week or so until the MotherShip arrives to take me to Bermuda--or was it Pluto...?--and incinerate the rest of you. But you're not supposed to know about that...) warrants a friggin blinky-cop-light-thingy and a few more !!!!!!!'s???"
...But then I remember that by now, The Fates have dealt us so many (thus far) anticlimactic, wolf-crying occasions for such that by now we're just all like, "Oh. Neat. Swell. Something like, five more people and those bastards will officially have the entire world against them. Yay. Could you pass the peas?" cuz we've resigned ourselves to our horrible fates-worse-than-Commie-ism here as the Machine grinds and crushes on...
Well, I don't know about you people, but I think that that is such a wholly unsavory notion that I'm filing it in my head right now in its own little folder entitled simply: "SUCK! Aaaaarrgh!" (the groan to be psycho-aurally interpretted by the reader as either one of anguish or territorial warning/anger, depending on the mood of the fibers comprising the folder itself at any given time--just ask it. It's pretty amiable...usually doesn't bite...)

The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed really for a two party system. This is not good.

Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).

Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.

The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our example. The majority is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is 30 republican seats.

Therefore, they get the committee chair on each committee, and they get the majority number of members in each committee.

So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority 30 seats.

this libertarian free market companies run amok bs is that bs just because you all believe the fasctist right wing propaganda don't mean its true. whats wrong with socalism? an honest question yes you will have higher taxes but those taxes go for universal health care, regulation of the campanies, education, and normal size military budget. neocons are fasctist pure and simple.go green party or something.

Uuuuuhhh----UNIREALIST, can you please tell me in what not-so-parallel existence enacting tyrannical laws to crush/prohibit tyranny actually solves ANYTHING? (Not to mention the implied defense/apology for liberalism...*GAG!*)
The simple fact is that as long as the government is bigger than about a hundred or so people (beyond Congress), whose jobs would consist of answering phones and mowing the lawn--oh, and all the laws that have been enacted since about 1800AD are repealed--neither you or I (nor ANYONE) will ever be free. What it comes down to is this: the government cannot help everyone. In fact, if they try and help anyone at all, they will just end up disrupting some other sector of society and hampering them (which doesn't even begin to address the utter grace, masterful skill, and degree of effortlessness akin to inborn, genetic second nature to which they universally execute every "duty" they fulfill so horribly inefficiently and at painful, if not deadly, expense)...which gets built on and built on by greed and selfish, partisan whining, etc. until we get to the point where we are now, which couldn't even begin to happen at all if the three branches hadn't been enacting, promoting, and enforcing law after pointless, intrusive law for two centuries instead of fulfilling their sworn obligation to uphold our freedoms against EVERYONE (inside or out of the country).
The government should be out of schools, out of churches and homes, out of all business, and most of all, out of law enforcement. They do it at far too great an expense and with entirely too much corruption...and if they are keeping their grubby paws off the open market (we DO NOT, and I mean DO NNNOOOTTT(!!!) have an open market in this country. between corporate favoritism and welfare and the establishment of the central bank, (and many, many more...) it is what you could call a "hampered" market if you felt sorry for it at the time and wanted to make it feel better about itself--but that's stretchin' it a bit.), said market would simply regulate itself (how could it not? All a market is is a bunch of people who want things and a bunch of people who sell things. Supply, demand, need/want for a product, desire to sell a product, etc. will always keep an equilibrium if left unhindered because they represent themselves--there is no two sides to balance--just a big, thriving, happy mass of people conducting business without a thousand taxes, fees, licenses, fines, embargos, trade regulation restrictions...the list goes on for-freakin-ever) and private industry could do all the things we rely on government for, and for MUCH cheaper, and at higher quality. And no matter what(!), the very first law you pass with all your road-pavin' good intentions outlawing anything, even bad or tyrannical things, you've taken your first step to inducing slavery of all citizens. Period.

Do you REALLY want me to tell you what's wrong with socialism? Oh, I will. I totally will tell you everything wrong with it until you cry and beg the world for forgiveness...but are ya sure you REALLY want to ask that question and endure the pain and self-loathing?

Dredd re:#15 - Nah, it's not important enough for the White House Press Corps to pick up on.

On a side note, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons for the current neo-con wiretap orgy is to get a peek at the skeletons in the closets of anyone who might need to be swiftboated later. What better way to stifle critics and end any push for investigations?

I'm quite sure that Fukuyama has now been added to a very long enemies list.

Regarding #3's comments: At this rate, I'm wondering if the elections will just be "cancelled" in November. I'm sure Bushco could come up with a reason for this --- "This is not the time to change the make up of the House and Senate --- we are at war".... Seriously, what will it take to end this madness? Americans just don't seem to care about what is going on. They don't read the papers, they are more concerned with stupid TV shows and about gays getting married than the possibility of living under a dictatorship. We are all too fat and happy to rebel, and this is what will end up bringing us all down. I used to find hope when people started speaking out, as Fukuyama has done, thinking that at last, this will be the last straw --- but as more and more things come out and are ignored by the MSM and smeared by the talking heads, it all just seems so pointless. I am so depressed.

I completely agree with that, Kestrel. It's also certainly a very efficient way to keep entities such as the media and other such (supposedly) public interest-oriented groups constantly in line with one's policies...through blackmail.

RE: JEDI---Just so you know, the offer's on the table: whenever you're ready you just let me know and I'll tell you absolutely everything horrible, ghastly and satanic about socialism in one friggin comment post...well, let me know and I'll be back later to do so...it'll give you time to pack a lunch and hop on the ol' school bus, Sport.

The Bushit administration are the biggest terrorist threat in this world. They beat the system by controlling the outcome twice now. Iraq was not a mistake and now they are gonna convince us that they can recognize a terrorist country from a non terrorist state and we should let them let tell us we need a foreign arab country in charge of our port security makes perfect sense. We must Impeach and jail immediately of suffer the increasing price tag on their existance and control.

Mr. "The End of History" is telling us his pet philosophy took a wrong turn. I think he is trying to distance himself from his own ideas and he has realized there will indeed be "history" to hold him accountable.

For Jeff: Your faith in free markets is obviously sincere. But you've left out a few items.

Markets cannot be truly free when big corporations are able to dominate them by buying up smaller companies that would otherwise be their competition. That's what is happening now, because the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was passed in 1890 to control "trusts," is in mothballs.

Markets cannot be truly free when cartels like OPEC manipulate production and control prices, often with a political motive, rather than economic.

Markets cannot be truly free when artificial leverage is added. Superfluous "futures" contracts in non-agricultural assets like stocks and bonds have created a situation whereby the so-called commodity (a stock or a bond) is purchased in bulk on 10% margin or less, and the sheer volume of the transaction outweighs the trading in the item itself on the proper exchange. This has been going on since 1982, and when it was instituted not even stockbrokers knew what was going on (see Chapter 10 of "The Lindbergh Syndrome" for more details).

Markets cannot be truly free when politicians pass laws that favor those companies with whom they are in cahoots, and when the vice president is able to summon executives from the largest oil companies in secret and formulate policies that favor these companies over their competition.

Well. It's clear that all the idealism, if such was EVER the case with the PNAC people, has gone out of their little experiment, but the power-craziness is undeterred. All this shit about spreading democracy is really just cover for kleptocracy. It is hard to believe in the regime change ideal when the obsession has been with Iraq for so long (plenty of other targets, easier and cheaper and at least as deserving). The driving force is the money to be made. The spreading of democracy was slapped over that motive with the usual inattention given hasty excuses for greed. I'll be impressed when these "idealists" actively start working to dismantle the fascist structure in place across all three branches of the federal government. Too easy to say this stuff when hyping a book.

So another interesting OpEd from Fukuyama. Remember this from the NYTimes? I am also wondering, if he has had this change of heart, why is he on the Steering Committee for the Scooter Libby Defense Fund?

"The fund's steering committee is composed of several prominent Republicans, a few Democrats and several friends of Mr. Libby. It includes three former Republican senators, Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming and Spencer Abraham of Michigan; two former Republican presidential candidates, Jack F. Kemp and Steve Forbes; and Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Prof. Francis Fukuyama of Johns Hopkins ."

Perhaps you should go read a book on economics instead of getting all your info on the market from political arguments/discussions like this one. Then, after you're certain you've actually absorbed any of the information, go back and read my post, wherein I stated that we DO NOT (because of things like EVERYTHING you mentioned) have an open market, and that we WOULD if the government kept their grubby little paws off of said market--which would be the case under the conditions I described. And while you're doing that, give me the stash you have of whatever you're smoking that makes you so discriminatory about the information you absorb from people's posts so's I can also free my mind, man. Heh Heh. Yeah man...Totally. Dude! Heh Heh--ya got any Cheetos I could score, too? Oh, and some Velveeta...totally, dude.

What rises to the top, above all of what you have to say, is how repulsive your sarcastic and/or insulting comments are towards other contributors to the thread. "How dare they disagree with me!"

I learned, a long time ago, that if you do not debate in a civil manner, people's main impression will not be the gist of your message, but the manner in which you delivered it. I doubt anyone would desire that.

(Sorry, my previous post had part of the first paragraph deleted, for some unknown reason):

Jeff, I've carefully read your posts, and you do have some very good points, there's no question about that....but....

What rises to the top, above all of what you have to say, is how repulsive your sarcastic and/or insulting comments are towards other contributors to the thread. "How dare they disagree with me!"

I learned, a long time ago, that if you do not debate in a civil manner, people's main impression will not be the gist of your message, but the manner in which you delivered it. I doubt anyone would desire that.

The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed for a two party system.

It is a winner take all affair. This is not good, but it is reality. It invites neoCons to NAZI us.

Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).

Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.

The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our system. The majority, in this example, is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is the republicans because they got those 30 seats.

Therefore, they get the committee chair on each and every committee, and they get the majority number of members in each and every committee of congress.

So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority republican 30 seats.

Anyone see any way to improve this?

I do. The polls show that the body politic favors democrats in the upcoming election, and voting democrats into the majority is the public will.

We would have an easier time prevailing upon them to change the rules.

It should be pro rata based upon percentage of seats.

Committees should be distributed to all parties based upon percentage of seats in a pro rata configuration.

Otherwise, when independents, greens, democrats, and other parties fight each other the republicans always remain the majority party and therefore always control the congress.

Jeff #19. I don't know who you're replying to, but it's not me. All I did was predict a likely outcome of events. SOMEONE is going to have to take the blame for the train wreck ahead, when everyone finally realizes that our country has been sold down the river, and our Constitution is gone, and the next ten generations of our children will be serfs to foreign feudal lords. Who's that SOMEONE going to be, eh? I'm betting the Christians who enabled the Bush coup will be the scapegoats.

As for your free market expostulations, well, have you figured out yet how to answer the Problem of the Commons? Until you have, don't be so hasty to trash socialism, and government in general.

For Jeff: You're obviously a guy who would rather insult people than argue with them. There was nothing in my post that was in any way personal toward you. I focused on facts. You responded by insulting me. Bob Bilse is right...you won't win any arguments with insults or by using childish language like "dude." I'd save that for arguments at the neighborhood bar.

If you knew (or cared) anything about who I was, and/or read anything I've had published, you'd know I don't get most of my information from blogs. What I posted came from 28 years of personal experience with Wall Street firms. I also taught financial planning for Adelphi University. I don't know what your background is, or if you've ever had a book published. But you certainly don't present yourself in a manner that enhances your credibility.

Truly free markets depend on all who wish to participate having equal access. Do you have a million dollars to invest? If you do, you can invest in any hedge fund. If you don't, you can't. With hedge funds dominating trading in derivative securities on an ever-increasing basis, that means the financial markets are becoming more and more exclusive every day. That's not because of government interference, it's because of a lack of government oversight. Do you get that, Jeff?

I won't attempt to restate what I posted earlier. This posting is for those bloggers who want to discuss the question on its merits, not for those who prefer using ad hominem-style billingsgate.

I ask this question in all seriousness and not in any exasperation: have you people never heard a joke made that was simply "a joke" and was not, in any way meant to make fun of you, personally?
I did quite well in most debate formats when I formally competed in such, but I was unaware that this is a formal debate. Was I supposed to wear a suit? I didn't bring my briefs.
While I'll admit that my personality can be a bit acidic at times, I joke about everything. EVERYTHING. That much should be apparent. (I feel that if we can't laugh at life--especially the grave, serious, and/or offensive--then we are doomed to take everything too seriously and become fundamentalist in our outlook.) So, when I make such remarks I do so not in seriousness, but jokingly. I obviously don't really want some of what you are smoking, and don't really speak like a "stoner" (eg: dude, he heh, etc.). I don't even really believe that you are, in fact smoking anything. I would think that all the silliness at the end of the post would have taken away from the acidity of the rest of it...
In the future, I'll refrain from posting at all, unless I have something serious to add in a serious manner, and will save my levity for another medium to which it lends itself more readily. I apologize that I have offended you, but I will not apologize for what I wrote or the spirit from which it came.

My main concern is keeping Bradblog where it has been: a place where issues are discussed with vigor and even vehemence, but without personal stuff getting in the way. In that regard it's light years ahead of other blogs that are dominated by name-calling and scatological language.

I see your point and honestly hadn't looked at it in that light because I don't really post anywhere else. On those terms, I DO apologize for what I said, but not the spirit, and will see if I can determine a way to retain such silly, yet serious banter characteristic of myself (whether or not it actually comes through properly in posts) and portray it more accurately, but without inciting actual personal attacks and encouraging/contributing to the deterioration of this forum, which has indeed retained a level of truth and objectivity unsurpassed (based on a quick glance around at other such forums on my part).
It's probably high time I found a way to reconcile my sarcasm, debate styke, and joking tendencies with one another in a maner that more accurately reflects my actual personality, anyhow. Rest assured that such will be taken in mind with much gravity in all future posts.

I submit that my comment was all in good humor, whereas your childish rant against RLM was something you thought you would get away with unchallenged, and your subsequent cop out shows that you are either incapable of uninterested in defending your point of view based on its own merits.

(I'm having some trouble coming out in the black here today, it would appear...but I'm trying to continue my participation here in a newly changed tone, so I'll humor this to try and leave a more positive wake in this thread when it's all said and done (not to attempt to further or assist any negative approaches to discussion within this forum)...)

RE: BVAC
Which comment on your part was in good humor?
In what way is my having seen the error of my method and potential harm to which it could contribute regarding this forum, apologizing for such lack of insight, and stating a specific intent to bear all of such in mind in future participation a "cop out"?
Would you prefer I be more argumentative about it and try and stir up a good ol' squabble, causing as much trouble as I could just to stay consistent?
Which point of view am I not defending, based on its own merits? If you're referring to my original assertion that the government should be much smaller, since bureaucrats use the size and scope of it to hide and/or justify their attacks on our freedom, along with the assertion that if such were the case, they would have their grubby little paws off of the market, which would then be truly open, I believe I addressed that in my (admittedly) acidic reply, but here's a recap: all of the things that were mentioned by RLM as items I had overlooked or failed to take into account are, in fact forms of meddling and/or intervention on the part of the state to sway, color, or outright manipulate the market. As a result, they are all things that fall under my assessment of things that needed to end in order for a free market to come about and be available to the people of America to use to financially advance, unhindered by the current myriad licensing, taxing, regulatory, and otherwise inhibitory and/or unfairly administered legislation and practices on the part of our government. As such, they are NOT items having escaped my notice or grasp, but rather were covered as items needing to be done away with by my initial parameters for a truly free and open market. As a result, he and I were actually in agreement on such things and as such, there is nothing I need to argue, defend, or otherwise attempt to promote on its merits, or any other, because nothing I have said is actually under attack. (My methods are another story, and I think we've covered that and I have been set aright on such.)

(I believe BVAC was being sarcastic, spoofing what they believe was not delivery of jokes/good humor, but intentional insults - I must confess, I, too, don't feel they read well as "jokes"):

Ad Hominum Attack: An attempt to refute another’s position by attacking the person rather than the argument.

You have legitimate, debatable points. It's clear you've come to a realization that the sarcasm detracts from your points, rather than lending weight to them. And that puts you in the black, as far as I'm concerned.

Your three subsequent posts make the point that your intentions are as good as any on this blog, and that's good enough, at least for me. None of us are perfect....except for George W. Bush....(now, that's sarcasm)

I see what you are saying. I never considered any of my comments to be ad hominem because A) I was 99% joking (and therefore not taking myself seriously) and B) I was attacking the argument and using such insults as a great portion of my delivery vehicle. But I can see how the reason gets lost in the insults.
I seem to forget that no one here is, or ever has, speaking face to face with me and so cannot see the nature of my personality and how it tends to come off. No one who has ever spent any time talking to me in any light would think to take such things personally or seriously because it's obvious quite soon after meeting and conversing with me that I have the same attitude toward everything and that I am clearly not serious in my insults (or, a great deal of the time, much else)--however dark or scathing my sense of humor may be...in fact, there are people I've spent a fairly great deal of time talking to socially, but who are not close friends, and therefore do not know me more intimately on a personal level, to whom I've mentioned various, sundry bad news (or whatever--something serious, anyhow) that have to ask me multiple times if I'm serious, and then some still don't believe me, no matter what I tell them.
I have long "known", but now fully recognize on all necessary conscious levels, that such aspects of my natural outward, interactive tendencies are not as apparent , or even visible at all in such a medium as this...c'est la vie. We live and we learn (and in my opinion, neither one of those activities is remotely possible without the other. And so I move on to post in different lights, and save the cynical theatrics for their natural appearance in direct interpersonal contact, having at long last purchased a fucking clue and put it to work in my cognitive function...here's hoping it's not a dud (my cognitive function, not the clue ;-])

Well, right. If you aren't face to face with someone, then your posting has to serve as a word picture. This means you have to try harder to be polite, or risk offending someone.

"My reading of economics varies drastically from yours..." is O.K. to say. "Perhaps you should go read a book on economics..." isn't O.K. You might get away with it in direct conversation if you were smiling or laughing as you said it, but it doesn't come across as humorous in print at all. And if the person you're addressing with the remark might know more about the subject than you do, it puts you in a bad light.

"...instead of getting all your info on the market from political discussions..." is even more insulting. It diminishes the person on the other end to a mindless sycophant who will pick up on something another person posts but can't think for himself. When the opposite is true, it puts you in a bad light.

Indeed.
Taken and agreed. Hey, that rhymes...which is, in correlation with my aforementioned desire for such, a much more light-hearted and positive wake to leave on this thread, so I'll retire my part of it as such...(and in the future try to avoid being such a dick-HEAD...sorry, I couldn't resist)